And the winner of this year's AO -- the drawmakers!

Ok, maybe a little bit of an overstatement. But ONLY a little bit of one. Does anybody think that Djokovic's victory in the final was not significantly facilitated by Murray having to play Fed in the semis. Or that Fed's 5-set loss to Murray was due in part to more wear and tear from a far tougher draw than Murray had (especially a 5-setter against Tsonga in the previous round)?

Right now these three are so evenly matched in terms of capabilities that something as random as road to the final can significantly affect the outcome of matches between them. My guess is that until Nadal returns, the winner of the tourneys will be whichever player draws Ferrer in his half.

Bull. Djoko would have beaten Fed more easily than Murray did and it wouldn't have affected his perf in the final. (Djoko has already won AO after beating Fed in the semi and Murray in the final in 2011). He also had Murray, Nadal back to back in 2012 and I can't think of any tougher combination (much tougher than Fed + Murray), although the other way around (Nadal first and Murray next) would no doubt be even worse. It doesn't matter what draw you throw at Djoko at AO, a bit like Rafa at RG although not for as long.

Bull. Djoko would have beaten Fed more easily than Murray did and it wouldn't have affected his perf in the final. (Djoko has already won AO after beating Fed in the semi and Murray in the final in 2011). He also had Murray, Nadal back to back in 2012 and I can't think of any tougher combination (much tougher than Fed + Murray), although the other way around (Nadal first and Murray next) would no doubt be even worse. It doesn't matter what draw you throw at Djoko at AO, a bit like Rafa at RG although not for as long.

Click to expand...

The major hole in your argument is that Murray in 2011 is NOT the Murray of 2013. Just as the Federer and Nadal of 2007 and 2008 are not the Federer and Nadal of 2013. Just as the DJoko of today is not the Djoko of early 2011. Right now the top 3 are so evenly matched that factors like road to the final end up making a huge difference in terms of outcome. I suppose you can contest this by saying that Murray used to own Djokovic in junior tennis or something, but I doubt anybody is going to take your argument seriously. Nor should they.

In 2011, Djokovic was so dominant at the AO there are few who could have stopped him, last of all a headcase Murray in the final.

The major hole in your argument is that Murray in 2011 is NOT the Murray of 2013. Just as the Federer and Nadal of 2007 and 2008 are not the Federer and Nadal of 2013. Right now the top 3 are so evenly matched that factors like road to the final end up making a huge difference in terms of outcome. I suppose you can contest this by saying that Murray used to own Djokovic in junior tennis or something, but I doubt anybody is going to take your argument seriously. Nor should they.

Click to expand...

Djoko is not the same either. He's had the entire 2011 feat behind him now and is #1 and is much more confident and his serve has improved immensely (it wasn't great in AO 2011). So they both improved, so what? Djoko still has the edge in their matchup. Djoko is still the better of the 2.

Djokovic would have beaten Federer in straight sets in the semis just as he did in 2008 and 2011, and would have been physically in fine shape for the final regardless. He may have been better sharpened up despite the straight sets win than his rout of Ferrer, started better, and won the final more easily. Djokovic is the Australian Open GOAT, was always going to be a big ask for Murray to beat him here, but he gave a good try.

Djoko is not the same either. He's had the entire 2011 feat behind him now and is #1 and is much more confident and his serve has improved immensely (it wasn't great in AO 2011). So they both improved, so what? Djoko still has the edge in their matchup. Djoko is still the better of the 2.

Click to expand...

So now you're arguing that Djokovic of today is better than the Djokovic that went on a tear, not losing a match for half a season in 2011. It's just one breathtakingly bad argument after another. Of course Djokovic isn't the same player he was two years ago. He's not as consistent at reaching and maintaining his highest level. Again, at this moment, the top 3 are pretty evenly matched. Making references to 2 or 20 years ago is pointless.

Yes he is better, Certainly he is. At AO 2011, he had never been #1 yet and it was just the beginnning of his great stretch. He's played better this AO. Absolutely. (+ if you can't see he's serving better, then you're blind, no offense. Djoko would not have had a shot in hell at winning WTF in 2010. Why? His serve was still shaky among other things).

Djokovic ended 2012 as the clear #1, and how now beaten Murray 3 times in a row, clearly regaining the edge in the matchup. As for his level compared to 2011, it is probably a bit lower, but the other guys are also playing better than they were in 2011- Murray is better, Nadal before his injury was better last year, Federer is even playing better than his mostly dead 2011. The argument Murray should have beaten Djokovic at the Australian Open but for the draw, is as deluded as the argument of Murray haters that Murray only beat Djokovic at the U.S Open due to the wind. The nonsense never ends.

I don't think that Murray lost because of his draw. The match today was very similar to the US Open final -- except that Murray won the second set there, and couldn't manage it here.

I think this is just how it goes with Murray/Djokovic five setters. Murray can match or exceed Djokovic for two sets, but then he gets spent and Djokovic goes on a tear. It was like that at the AO semifinal last year, too, except that Murray's strong sets were 2 and 3.

If Murray had capitalized in the second set today, I really think he would have taken it in 5.

Yes he is better, Certainly he is. At AO 2011, he had never been #1 yet and it was just the beginnning of his great stretch. He's played better this AO. Absolutely. (+ if you can't see he's serving better, then you're blind, no offense. Djoko would not have had a shot in hell at winning WTF in 2010. Why? His serve was still shaky among other things).

Click to expand...

By your criterion of improvement, Nadal is better now than he has ever been because he has had more weeks at #1. The reason Djokovic reached #1 in the summer of 2011 is that from midway through the AO onward, he played some of the most consistently high-level tennis in history. He is not at that level now. Mechanically he might have improved some aspects of his game, but he is not able to put it all together at a high level for as long of stretches as he was in that special 6-month period he had. Beginning with the AO, where he was clearly playing better than he was this year. I don't see how any honest person can try to argue that Djokovic was producing better tennis, or as good of tennis, at this year's AO as he was at the AO two years ago.

And your mentioning that Djokovic almost lost to Murray in the semi in 2011 is wrong. He straight-setted Federer in the semi, then straight-setted Murray in the final. This year, Djokovic almost lost to Wawrinka in the early rounds, though admittedly Wawrinka was playing good aggressive tennis.

Djokovic ended 2012 as the clear #1, and how now beaten Murray 3 times in a row, clearly regaining the edge in the matchup. As for his level compared to 2011, it is probably a bit lower, but the other guys are also playing better than they were in 2011- Murray is better, Nadal before his injury was better last year, Federer is even playing better than his mostly dead 2011. The argument Murray should have beaten Djokovic at the Australian Open but for the draw, is as deluded as the argument of Murray haters that Murray only beat Djokovic at the U.S Open due to the wind. The nonsense never ends.

Click to expand...

I don't know if Murray would have beaten Djokovic if his draw had been different. Your missing my point entirely, though, if you think my argument is that he would have. I am saying that the top 3 are pretty evenly matched, and for the outcome to be as one-sided as the AO final was this year is likely due to the way the draw panned out. Otherwise, the contest would have been much closer, and either play might have won in a contest that would surely have gone 5 sets.

I'm not a Murray fan at all. I'm just stating the obvious. The long 5-setter with Federer clearly affected Murray's performance in the final. And not for the better, either.

By your criterion of improvement, Nadal is better now than he has ever been because he has had more weeks at #1. The reason Djokovic reached #1 in the summer of 2011 is that from midway through the AO onward, he played some of the most consistently high-level tennis in history. He is not at that level now. Mechanically he might have improved some aspects of his game, but he is not able to put it all together at a high level for as long of stretches as he was in that special 6-month period he had. Beginning with the AO, where he was clearly playing better than he was this year. I don't see how any honest person can try to argue that Djokovic was producing better tennis, or as good of tennis, at this year's AO as he was at the AO two years ago.

And your mentioning that Djokovic almost lost to Murray in the semi in 2011 is wrong. He straight-setted Federer in the semi, then straight-setted Murray in the final. This year, Djokovic almost lost to Wawrinka in the early rounds, though admittedly Wawrinka was playing good aggressive tennis.

Click to expand...

Yes, I edited my post because I realized I was talking about 2012. It changes absolutely nothing in the dynamic between Djoko and Murray. Djoko has been the better player of the 2 for the last 3 years and he still is. The draw makes 0 difference (as WTF showed well enough). Actually, the only time the draw made a difference is USO 2012 because Djoko had to play 3 days in a row, a tall order for a slam.

I don't know if Murray would have beaten Djokovic if his draw had been different. Your missing my point entirely, though, if you think my argument is that he would have. I am saying that the top 3 are pretty evenly matched, and for the outcome to be as one-sided as the AO final was this year is likely due to the way the draw panned out. Otherwise, the contest would have been much closer, and either play might have won in a contest that would surely have gone 5 sets.

I'm not a Murray fan at all. I'm just stating the obvious. The long 5-setter with Federer clearly affected Murray's performance in the final. And not for the better, either.

Click to expand...

Fine, since you put it that way you might have a point. I guess we will get a better guage as the year goes on how often the winner comes out of the Ferrer half (as I dont expect Nadal back until clay court season begins atleast, maybe not even then). In the event the Miami and Indian Wells winners both come out of the Ferrer half, on the heels of Shanghai, WTF, and here, you could well have a point, as it would be 5 events in a row then. U.S Open didnt see Federer reach the semis so it was moot, although technically that was the loser coming out of the Ferrer half, and Paris was not about the big 3 or 4.

It is funny that some were crowing about Ferrer finally after 6 whole months of inactivity going past Nadal in the rankings, and many are now lamenting Nadal is out since Ferrer is so much less of a factor in draws and at the top. Sometimes it is best to be careful what you wish for. Even Nadal haters now must admit that the top echelon of the game is better off for his presence, and loses something significant without him.

Yes, I edited my post because I realized I was talking about 2012. It changes absolutely nothing in the dynamic between Djoko and Murray. Djoko has been the better player of the 2 for the last 3 years and he still is. The draw makes 0 difference (as WTF showed well enough). Actually, the only time the draw made a difference is USO 2012 because Djoko had to play 3 days in a row, a tall order for a slam.

Click to expand...

The two are very evenly matched. Murray won the last slam final in 5 sets, and in Shanghai (I think it was) Djokovic won a match that was 3 close sets. Your argument about Djokovic's ranking is silly and misses the reality that official rankings lag behind results. Federer was still #1 for weeks after losing to Nadal at Wimbledon in 2008, but it was obvious to everybody that he was not the best player in the world. Djokovic was not #1 in the 2011 AO, but he was playing tennis that far surpassed what any other player had to offer. The later rise in the rankings reflected that.

I don't know if Murray would have beaten Djokovic if his draw had been different. .

Click to expand...

Of course you have a right to delude yourself. Given that Murray has never beaten Djoko at AO, you do not have a point to convince anyone else though, sorry. Murray had a cakewalk draw until Fed and even Fed didn't play that well. Murray had a day off between each match. He had incredibly weak opposition, didn't even have to play Delpo in the quarters. If Murray cannot handle a draw like the one he had then it's really bad news for him, because he's most likely to never get much better. If you want to play that game, I'd go so far as to claim that if Murray had had Djoko's draw instead, he wouldn't even have made the final because he would have lost to Wawrinka playing the match of his life (exactly like it happened at USO before). Djoko is better than Murray, especially at AO. No excuse needed.

Fine, since you put it that way you might have a point. I guess we will get a better guage as the year goes on how often the winner comes out of the Ferrer half (as I dont expect Nadal back until clay court season begins atleast, maybe not even then). In the event Miami and Indian Wells winner both come out of the Ferrer half, on the heels of Shanghai, WTF, and here, you could well have a point, as it would be 5 events in a row then. U.S Open didnt see Federer reach the semis so it was moot, and Paris was not about the big 3 or 4.

Click to expand...

I think Miami will be different, as I doubt Nadal or Federer will be playing that tournament (Federer has decided to skip it this year). Murray and Djoko will likely be on opposite sides of the draw.

Of course you have a right to delude yourself. Given that Murray has never beaten Djoko at AO, you do not have a point to convince anyone else though, sorry. Murray had a cakewalk draw until Fed and even Fed didn't play that well. Murray had a day off between each match. He had incredibly weak opposition, didn't even have to play Delpo in the quarters. If Murray cannot handle a draw like the one he had then it's really bad news for him, because he's most likely to never get much better. If you want to play that game, I'd go so far as to claim that if Murray had had Djoko's draw instead, he wouldn't even have made the final because he would have lost to Wawrinka playing the match of his life (exactly like it happened at USO before). Djoko is better than Murray, especially at AO. No excuse needed.

Click to expand...

Good job not actually addressing my argument. The only deluded people on this forum are those who think that Djokovic's level at this year's AO is comparable to his level in 2011.

I think Miami will be different, as I doubt Nadal or Federer will be playing that tournament (Federer has decided to skip it this year). Murray and Djoko will likely be on opposite sides of the draw.

Click to expand...

OK. Well even if the winner comes out of the Ferrer half at Indian Wells, presuming the big 3 all make the semis, that would be 4 significant events in a row. Clay I am not sure if it matters even if Nadal is not back, since Murray isnt even better than Ferrer on clay, unless he improves on it.

Every year the losers are the AO organizers...eliminate the uneven gap between the SFs and the finals! The USO has finally wised up and offered the proper FO/Wimby one-day of rest for both winners. It's time for the AO to ditch the staggered SF schedule.

Bull. Djoko would have beaten Fed more easily than Murray did and it wouldn't have affected his perf in the final. (Djoko has already won AO after beating Fed in the semi and Murray in the final in 2011). He also had Murray, Nadal back to back in 2012 and I can't think of any tougher combination (much tougher than Fed + Murray), although the other way around (Nadal first and Murray next) would no doubt be even worse. It doesn't matter what draw you throw at Djoko at AO, a bit like Rafa at RG although not for as long.

Of course you have a right to delude yourself. Given that Murray has never beaten Djoko at AO, you do not have a point to convince anyone else though, sorry. Murray had a cakewalk draw until Fed and even Fed didn't play that well. Murray had a day off between each match. He had incredibly weak opposition, didn't even have to play Delpo in the quarters.

Click to expand...

Yes, but given that Delpo had fallen to Chardy who then promptly got straight-setted by Murray, what kind of opposition do you suppose Delpo would have offered Murray? Obviously very little on the evidence notwithstanding the fact that Murray has, in any case, always been a bad match-up for Delpo.

If Murray cannot handle a draw like the one he had then it's really bad news for him, because he's most likely to never get much better. If you want to play that game, I'd go so far as to claim that if Murray had had Djoko's draw instead, he wouldn't even have made the final because he would have lost to Wawrinka playing the match of his life (exactly like it happened at USO before). Djoko is better than Murray, especially at AO. No excuse needed.

Click to expand...

Again, you conveniently forget how adept Murray is at handling tricky opponents in his draws. Take 2012 USO. Murray had to struggle against Cilic who almost did to him what Wawrinka almost did to Djokovic at the AO. But he got past him just as Djokovic did Wawrinka. Both are adept at facing tough opponents and finding a way past them. I have no doubts at all that Murray would have found a way past an in-form Wawrinka just as he has in the past eg. at 2009 Wimbledon.

Bull. Djoko would have beaten Fed more easily than Murray did and it wouldn't have affected his perf in the final. (Djoko has already won AO after beating Fed in the semi and Murray in the final in 2011). He also had Murray, Nadal back to back in 2012 and I can't think of any tougher combination (much tougher than Fed + Murray), although the other way around (Nadal first and Murray next) would no doubt be even worse. It doesn't matter what draw you throw at Djoko at AO, a bit like Rafa at RG although not for as long.

Click to expand...

No. I think the OP is onto something. Whoever draws Ferrer is going to become the odds on heavy favorite to win until Rafa returns. Regardless of the surface.

Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, here is one to consider; had Novak in 5 sets beaten Tsonga in the quarters then Andy in 5 again in the semis, Novak would not be guaranteed a final win over Roger if Roger in his quarter and semi had coasted through a Ferrer and/or a Simon respectively in straights.

Ha ha good one. Fed couldn't even beat Murray whom he destroyed in 2010 and Djoko is a worse proposition for him in a slam. Djoko would not have choked 2 sets away the way Murray did, 1 at the very most and even that is questionable because the way Fed was serving, Djoko would have broken him in every set.

Good job not actually addressing my argument. The only deluded people on this forum are those who think that Djokovic's level at this year's AO is comparable to his level in 2011.

Click to expand...

Friend, this is why I do not argue with women who seem unduly fond of the sound of their own voice, because I will end up wasting my time clarifying and refining their sloppily thrown together premises, patching all the holes in their leaky reasoning, only for them to become snippy and start inclining towards use of insecurity-evincing language that is a first cousin to ad homs, e.g., she hastens to suggest that you are somehow the one who is deluded.

No. I think the OP is onto something. Whoever draws Ferrer is going to become the odds on heavy favorite to win until Rafa returns. Regardless of the surface.

Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, here is one to consider; had Novak in 5 sets beaten Tsonga in the quarters then Andy in 5 again in the semis, Novak would not be guaranteed a final win over Roger if Roger in his quarter and semi had coasted through a Ferrer and/or a Simon respectively in straights.

Rafa not playing gives whoever draws Ferrer a huge advantage.

Click to expand...

I don't think Djoko would have needed 5 against Tsonga at AO. If anything, I suspect he would have had an easier time than he did vs Wawrinka who played like a man possessed. Tsonga would have probably taken a set off him tops. He would have had a tough semi vs Murray but then his final vs Fed would have been much easier than his final vs Nadal was last year. Sorry but currently at AO, the toughest possible combination a player could have is Murray/Nadal back to back. And Djoko got that last year. And he won.
Djoko also got the toughest possible combination at USO: Fed/Nadal. And he won too. And the toughest possible combination at WTF: Fed/Murray/Delpo and he won as well. So don't give me this nonsense about draws. The only time the draw defeated Djoko was on clay, RG last year where he failed to survive Fed/Nadal but beating Nadal at RG is probably the toughest ask in tennis history. Fed tried 5 times and failed.

I don't think Djoko would have needed 5 against Tsonga at AO. If anything, I suspect he would have had an easier time than he did vs Wawrinka who played like a man possessed. Tsonga would have probably taken a set off him tops. He would have had a tough semi vs Murray but then his final vs Fed would have been much easier than his final vs Nadal was last year. Sorry but currently at AO, the toughest possible combination a player could have is Murray/Nadal back to back. And Djoko got that last year. And he won.
Djoko also got the toughest possible combination at USO: Fed/Nadal. And he won too. And the toughest possible combination at WTF: Fed/Murray/Delpo and he won as well. So don't give me this nonsense about draws. The only time the draw defeated Djoko was on clay, RG last year where he failed to survive Fed/Nadal but beating Nadal at RG is probably the toughest ask in tennis history. Fed tried 5 times and failed.

Click to expand...

LOL seriously

I do not even know where to begin...I think I will just have to leave this one alone.

PS: The silky way you bob and weave inciting certain reactions while avoiding follow-up contact, I know you are flaming. You are also very good at it.

Ok, maybe a little bit of an overstatement. But ONLY a little bit of one. Does anybody think that Djokovic's victory in the final was not significantly facilitated by Murray having to play Fed in the semis. Or that Fed's 5-set loss to Murray was due in part to more wear and tear from a far tougher draw than Murray had (especially a 5-setter against Tsonga in the previous round)?

Right now these three are so evenly matched in terms of capabilities that something as random as road to the final can significantly affect the outcome of matches between them. My guess is that until Nadal returns, the winner of the tourneys will be whichever player draws Ferrer in his half.

Click to expand...

Nole.

He is the only one that draws Ferrer in his half at the slams.

Maybe ITF want him to break the slam record?

Nadal is a goner. Federer is old. Murray refuses to use the cvac. Ferrer can remain #4 and Nole will continue to draw him in his half.

Friend, this is why I do not argue with women who seem unduly fond of the sound of their own voice, because I will end up wasting my time clarifying and refining their sloppily thrown together premises, patching all the holes in their leaky reasoning, only for them to become snippy and start inclining towards use of insecurity-evincing language that is a first cousin to ad homs, e.g., she hastens to suggest that you are somehow the one who is deluded.

Click to expand...

I've copied and pasted your legendary words and will memorise and use it against my girlfriend next time she becomes irrationally hysterical.

On topic the OP Kanamit definitely has a point but is only stating the obvious.
With the current form of the top 3, being the operative line, the one who draws Ferrer will obviously have that advantage.
That's not to detract from Djokovic who still had a tough draw leading up to Ferrer and is a very deserved winner.

Bull. Djoko would have beaten Fed more easily than Murray did and it wouldn't have affected his perf in the final. (Djoko has already won AO after beating Fed in the semi and Murray in the final in 2011). He also had Murray, Nadal back to back in 2012 and I can't think of any tougher combination (much tougher than Fed + Murray), although the other way around (Nadal first and Murray next) would no doubt be even worse. It doesn't matter what draw you throw at Djoko at AO, a bit like Rafa at RG although not for as long.

Djokovic would have beaten Federer in straight sets in the semis just as he did in 2008 and 2011, and would have been physically in fine shape for the final regardless. He may have been better sharpened up despite the straight sets win than his rout of Ferrer, started better, and won the final more easily. Djokovic is the Australian Open GOAT, was always going to be a big ask for Murray to beat him here, but he gave a good try.

Click to expand...

Djokovic couldn't play Fed in the semis, they're 1 and 2. Djokovic could have played Murray in the semis. And he still would have won the tournament, but the finalwould have been better even if Djokovic did another straight sets job on Federer. Their other 2 semis were 3 close sets of good tennis, like the 2007 US Open final too.

Yes, but given that Delpo had fallen to Chardy who then promptly got straight-setted by Murray, what kind of opposition do you suppose Delpo would have offered Murray?

Click to expand...

By that logic, Nadal would have offered no resistance to Kohlschreiber if they had met in Wimbledon last year.

Chardy played the match of his life against Del Potro, on the other side of things Delpo had a bad day. Nevertheless, Delpo was in superb form earlier against Mannarino and Becker. Had he survived Chardy, it's very possible he could have rediscovered that form against Murray. Not saying he would have won, but it would have been a tough match for both.

Yes, but given that Delpo had fallen to Chardy who then promptly got straight-setted by Murray, what kind of opposition do you suppose Delpo would have offered Murray?

Click to expand...

Do you even watch tennis? That's not how it works. Murray had a ridiculously easy road to the semis. What's wrong with that? Just admit it. It doesn't make Murray any less of a tennis player, he was just lucky this tournament.

Also, I still can't get over the fact that Federer got matched up with Murray the two times that he could have met Ferrer (whom he absolutely owns). Now lets hope Nadal stays #5 for at least RG and Wimbledon so that maybe Federer could FINALLYYYYY get an easy semi for once in his damn life. The guy is a skinny 31 year old trying to compete with a bunch of muscular beasts. Cut the guy some slack.

Friend, this is why I do not argue with women who seem unduly fond of the sound of their own voice, because I will end up wasting my time clarifying and refining their sloppily thrown together premises, patching all the holes in their leaky reasoning, only for them to become snippy and start inclining towards use of insecurity-evincing language that is a first cousin to ad homs, e.g., she hastens to suggest that you are somehow the one who is deluded.

The premise of this thread is that the overriding element determining who wins is the guy who doesn't have to play 2 of the top 4 guys back to back.
This theory that having to face 2 of the top 4 instead of 1 makes all the difference while having some merit is not supported by lots of data, with the prime reason being that a lot of factors including the players own form on the day/the potential for an upset changing the shape of the draw etc.

We can never know what WOULD have happened if Djoker had to face Murray in the semis. What we do know though is that Djoker took out 2 of the top guys in a row at AO 11, USO 11 and AO 12 and at the WTF. Federer won Wimbledon having to beat Djokovic in the semis and then Murray in the final. At USO 2012 , Fed didn't even make it to the semis to be a factor. So really we are running on a sample size of ONE to prove this point.

ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, yes you would much rather face Ferrer than Murray. But all else WILL NEVER BE EQUAL, is my point.